Melissa Yotter

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum

A ballot title caption will satisfy ORS 250.035(2)(a) so long as it describes the “actual major effect[s]” of the proposed law within the 15-word limit. Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Oregon Court of Appeals (15 summaries)

Morgan v. Valley Property and Casualty Ins. Co.

Under OEC 803(6), a business record is a document that is routinely prepared in the course of a business’s activities and preparer owes a legal duty to report accurately. State v. Cain, 260 Or App 626, 633-34 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Kroetch v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.471, a request for an appeal for relief to an employer for unemployment charges can only be made after the eligibility decision has been made. Johnson v. Employment Div., 124 Or App 77, 81 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Holbrook v. Amsberry

Only acts or omissions by an attorney that have a “tendency to affect the result of the prosecution” entitle a person to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. Stevens v. State of Oregon, 322 Or 101, 110 (1995). A post-conviction court must consider evidence that would have been proffered had the attorney performed adequately. Lichau v. Baldwin, 333 Or 350, 363 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Woodbury

Per OEC 702, a witness can provide testimony “relative to a particular topic” as an expert if that person has the “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to provide that opinion testimony. State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282 (2000); State v. Althof, 273 Or App 342 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Bladorn

Under the Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9, an officer has authority to search for additional weapons incident to an arrest. State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554 (1992).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Perrott

In cases involving alleged DUI offenses, Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution does not relieve the state’s burden of proof for an exigency exception to the warrant requirement, when the only evidentiary support is an officer’s concern about the risk of dissipation in a defendant's blood-alcohol level prior to the officer obtaining a warrant.  State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781, 798 (2017). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Walker v. Providence Health System Oregon

Under ORS 656.262(11)(a), "[if an] insurer or self-insured employer…unreasonably delays acceptance or denial of a claim [for worker's compensation]…the insurer or self-insured employer shall be liable for an additional amount up to 25 percent of the amounts then due plus any attorney fees assessed under this section."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Sherertz v. Brownstein Rask

When considering the provision of a particular jury instruction, "[e]verything which is reasonably capable of confusing or misleading the jury should be avoided." Williams et al. v. Portland Gen. Elec., 195 Or 597, 610 (1952). A jury instruction will not be reversed if there is “little likelihood” that the jury was affected by the error; but if there is “some” or “significant” likelihood, then the jury instruction must be reversed. Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204, 226 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Cunio v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.120(1)(a), the Board of Parole must conduct parole eligibility hearings for juvenile aggravated murderers, which entail reviewing “mitigating evidence submitted by an inmate during a prison term hearing even if that evidence is unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the criminal offenses." Calderon-Pacheco v. Board of Parole, 309 Or 454, 458-59 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Wolf

A defendant may "raise the defense of self-defense" by either (1) providing the state with a pre-trial, written notice; or (2) by the provision of "affirmative evidence by a defense witness in the defendant’s case in chief.” Once the defense of self-defense has been properly raised, the state is burdened with disproving the application of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 161.055(3); State v. Boyce, 120 Or App 299, 305-306 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Schrepfer

Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution provides two avenues for law enforcement's response to a suspect's invocation of their right against compelled self-incrimination: if the invocation is unequivocal, the questioning must stop immediately, State v. Boyd, 360 Or 302, 318 (2016); if equivocal, the officer must stop the interrogation to clarify whether the suspect intended to invoke this right. State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38, 54 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Alne v. Nooth

Pursuant to Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, in order to be granted post-conviction relief on the basis of inadequate counsel, "a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his trial counsel did not exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequate performance." Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or 431, 435, 822 P2d 703 (1991).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Robinson

Under ORS 161.309(3), a defendant may file notice to present an insanity defense “at any time” before trial, if just cause for not filing it at the time of plea is provided.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Snyder

“A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.” ORS 161.405(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Chambers

Under ORS 813.260(2), a probation officer shall monitor a person’s progress under a diversion agreement and shall report her successful completion of or failure to comply with the treatment program to the court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure